We need a family welfare vs corporate welfare comparison chart

Many people still resent welfare if they aren't getting it. They use it fairly well as a talking point. I try to tell people that I would much rather part of my taxes go to feed a family who can't make it alone than to have my taxes go to subsidize corporate welfare like BOA and Exxon who pay very little if any in taxes and actually get part of my taxes to subsidize them.

I think we need a good chart of what 1 family of four on welfare, and most only get food stamp assistance, costs the taxpayer compared to what amount of our personal tax dollars go to subsidize a corporation like Bain Capitol.

When you talk about people who depend on the govt and pay little or no taxes, you need to talk corporations. That's where the real money is.

1. I totally agree. Only then will Reagan's "Welfare Queen" myth die.

Until that time, the less informed among us will continue to resent poor people, and continue to believe that the majority of welfare recipients are dark skinned and lazy - because that's the belief today.

2. I looked into that a few years ago.

I did not get charts or graphs, but I did find info and I wrote this for an article.

It needs to be updated as none of the links used are still active. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to do that research. Perhaps there is someone here who could look into it. It would certainly be interesting to see how much, if any, things have changed.

Here it is from 2002:

"Welfare increases poverty." Historical evidence clearly shows that welfare reduces poverty. If that were not true, FDR's New Deal would have been a complete failure. The New Deal reduced the poverty level from about 50 percent to 20 percent. Johnson's Great Society reduced it to 11 percent by 1973. Since the rise of corporate interests in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking and the poverty level has been rising to over 15 percent today. Yes, despite massive governmental anti-poverty spending, poverty still exists. How much higher would the poverty level be had the government spent little on welfare?

"Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending." In fact, welfare is only a blip on the radar screen of government spending, with means tested expenditures amounting to only 6% of the 2002 federal budget. Conservatives misrepresent welfare spending by including middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans in the statistics they quote.

"People on welfare are lazy and stupid bums." Welfare payments often do not cover the bare necessities of life. No one would enjoy being lazy under such conditions. The GAO compiled a summary of over 100 studies concluding that welfare does not reduce the desire to work. Welfare recipients find it degrading and demoralizing and would prefer the chance to work.

Conservatives contend that welfare recipients are usually black, teenage mothers who take advantage of the system by staying on it as long as ten years at a time. However, statistics show that whites form the largest racial group on welfare. Half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers.

"Welfare can be replaced by charity." Conservatives are strong proponents of this idea, but the reality is that charity is too under-funded, too localized, too mismatched, and too ill suited to replace welfare. Why would Americans, who hate to pay taxes, be willing to open their purses to charity at a rate that would compensate for the loss of governmental funds for welfare? They would have to multiply their current level of charitable donations by ten times to make up the difference.

Conservatives argue that Liberals favor social engineering because the poor receive the most welfare. Quite the contrary! Based on the evidence it appears it is the Conservative who advocates social engineering for the benefit of the wealthy and corporate conglomerates.

Entitlement spending on households is distributed proportionately among the various household groups. However, federal spending tilts in favor of the rich when corporate welfare is added into the mix. The CBO reported in the late 90's that the average taxpayer's share of taxes to fund social programs is $400 per year, while corporate welfare costs that taxpayer $1,400 per year.

Sources for federal government income for the 2002 budget break down as follows: Individual Income Taxes � 49%, Social Security Taxes 33%, Corporate Income Taxes 10%, Other 4%, and Excise Taxes 3%. Corporations are not required to pass any standards to qualify for their tax breaks, while welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits.